Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Charisma is NOT a positive term

Let me give several very common examples of appropriate uses of the word "charisma" here as it is interpreted in modern discourse:

1. Charles Manson was so charismatic that he could influence people into doing whatever he wanted them to.

1. Jim Jones had a charismatic personality and used his this to manipulate almost one thouand people into committing suicide.

Charisma is an extremely useful and important term in the study of cults and in mass psychology which is used to explain the almost but not quite hypnotic power to persuade that certain people are born with. It can be used for either good or ill. Hence:

The problem with the current verson of the articles is that the word "popularity" pops up out of nowhere as if one can popularity is just some sort of cahartet trait or comes about automatically without any eplantion. Hitler's "populairity" begs the question: why was he popular in the first place. I will replace with charismatic.--Lacatosias 09:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• I think you don't understand the meaning of the word charisma. It means attraction or charm. Can that be measured objectively? No. What do you rely on to know someone is charismatic? Anecdote or your personal impressions. Is that subjective? Yes. Too much so for an article intro.
• Can popularity be understood in objective terms? Yes. Does it have any other connotations besides what it means? Not really. Popularity can be either negative or positive, no judgement is being made.
• Your usage of the term only confirms what I explained. That doesn't make it any more objective. Also see what was mentioned above - Hitler was not universally considered charismatic, that's one of the traits that's been attributed to him due to his popularity and numerous anecdotes, which the intelligentsia and many other social circles did not always agree with. -- Simonides 09:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If I may weigh in:

Popularity is measurable (though not any more "objectively") but it does not help here, as Lacatosias said, because it doesn't say where that popularity comes from, and because "popularity" is not something "inherent" to Hitler as a person.

Charisma on the other hand is and while it is not objectively measureable (if that actually exists anywhere) it can be told from the reaction of people towards him. And popularity is not the same as charisma - Hindenburg might have been popular, but no one would ever call him charismatic.

If Hitler wasn't charismatic, then how is his success with the masses to be explained? Str1977 10:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, do you seriously think all historical incidents have a one-answer-fits-all solution? There are some clear multi-faceted answers in this case but that's not always how it works, and reducing everything to a peg-hole relationship is no way to understand any context - historical, psychological, whatever. Hitler was popular for many reasons - his bilious anti-semitism, his promises of German recovery, his national myth-making, the huge and incredibly pretentious rallies, his self-projection as a great and decisive leader, etc. Keep in mind that he had a massive propaganda machine behind him and began persecuting Jews publicly very early on, long before the war began, and also delivered on some of his economic promises. And popularity is easily measured by things such as genuine votes, sales records, amount of attention given to some topic in the media, etc. It can be proven that, for ex., Mariah Carey is a popular singer. Does that mean she is good? The question doesn't even come up.

Of course not. This whole charisma thing is overdone and as far as I can see, on this article, it reeks of apologist tones. Secondly, it is precisely because "inherent" traits are dubiously subjective that we should avoid them at all costs. There is really no need to "explain" his popularity - that's what the article is for. Neither did I say that charisma and popularity are the same thing, nor that his charisma should not be mentioned at all. It's just very misleading to put it in the intro as a primary and universal factor, because it wasn't. It is entirely accurate and verifiable to say his popularity helped him keep totalitarian control, but it would be absurd and unprovable to say his 'charm' kept everyone in line. The reasons for his popularity are explained in the article. You're free to insert somewhere in the article that some people considered him charismatic, among other things. -- Simonides 10:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, hey!! Ease up there, son. There is room for diagreement about the use of a single term or multiple terms to describe or not describe Adolf Hitler's character and try to explain or not exlain his populairy without getting into such ad hominems as NAZI APOLOGISM, for god's sake!! Listen carefully, I am avowed socialist!! In fact, I am a member of the Italian DS (Democratici di Sinistra) which evolved from the old PCI (Partito Comunista d'Italia)!! The last thing anyone on this earth has ever accused me of is apologism for the radical right. This is lunacy. You will either apologize or someone should intervene to enforce the rule against personal insults and character assasination!!--Lacatosias 11:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

To Str1977. To Simonides, agrre heartily.Only a part of it of course, but papal blessing, hierarchy retraction of the proscriptions, hierarchy blessing, the Reichskonkordat enforced vow from all moral catholic leader/professionals of fealty to the new state, sure helped. Forty per cent of Germans were catholics, and the words droves and wholescale describes their consequent drift to the Party after the quid pro quo. How many of the people voted for him in November 1933 is clear.

I have also been known to source that the vaunted economic miracle of Hiterism is largely a false notion for the time, and had more to with prior policies than with AH genius(or Schacht). Culturally Rohan D'O. Butler cites prvious historians Edmond Vermeil and Reinhold Aris, and used citations from P.R.Anderson, R.R.Ergang, Alexander gray, F.J.C. Hearnshaw. O.levy. E.O.Lorimer. H. Oncken, Arthur Rosenberg and H.Wickam Steed. Butler conclusively shows the roots digging into well prepared fertile cultural ground. We do not need to fear Germanism any more, but we have swapped the perennial fear for rather worse populism. I still think the 25 point plan more important than its omission justifies, even in the elucidation of the populist success. There is strong tendency towards this consensual-type Hitler as party-leader, which sits ill with texts pointing very clearly to the extraordinary fact of the program's un-changed durability. The program, along with Mein Kamp and the Fuhrer prinzip, the oratorical histrionics , the theatrical borrowings, the religious borrowings and the national philosophical bedrock give you the picture and give you the success of the carefully nurtured political charisma. However, I still disagree with the manner this is entered as maintaining the totalitarian, without the Gestapo balance. Oooh-do I see apologist? EffK 11:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

(doubly edit conflicted!!)

No, I definitely mistated the title of this section. You're right that charisma is not smething that can be measures objectively. Popularity is somehwta more liable to such measurement (polls and so on) but even here there is some subjectivity. But my real point was more simply that charisma is not a "biased" term, as some here have seemed to imply. I gave several iilustrations of common uages which show that it has no inherent connotations of being a "positive" or "negative" trait. It is just a trait. Plus, calling Hitler popular doesn't explain why he was popular. In a biography, it is often important to examine the charater traits that made the person what he was. Just putting: "he was very popular" at the beginning of the article is bound to provoke the question "well, why is it that the case if he was such a brutal monster??" Part of the answer lies in his "attrcatiness" or "charm", if you like. But these partcilualr words are very ambiguous: was it his pyciscal attractiveness, intellectual attraction or what? Charisma captures precisly that sense of mysterious attractiveness and authorititivness of persona that some people just have and others don't over groups of people when they speak or even just appear.--Lacatosias 11:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Look I hate this cliche but I have to use it: you keep putting the cart before the horse. Effective totalitarianism can be based on popularity, which in turn might be based on charisma (and it only PARTLY was in the case of Hitler, it was NOT a major influence - it makes Hitler sound like some magician), but you don't have totalitarianism based on charisma that ends up creating popularity. Explaining his popularity is what the article is for; if one's intrigued, one should read it, instead of trying to get all one's information about a world figure from a few adjectives - and if you want to include charisma, you might as well also throw in all the other stuff mentioned by Effk - why stop? And if you don't stop, doesn't all your info just become the article then? As I wrote, you should feel free to talk about charisma at other points in the article, but it is misleading in the intro. Also, you keep accepting 'Hitler's charisma' as some sort of universal truth - it wasn't - some people may have found him charming, but many people were also turned off by him; it just so happens that the ones who didn't like him never ended up with any lively anecdotes to relate about their personal encounters with him - coincidence, perhaps? -- Simonides 11:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK, if you have nothing to say on this issue, than stay away from it.

Lacatosias, I agree with everything you said.

Simonides, please remain on-topic. No one here is a Hitler apologist.

No, I don't think there's one clear-cut answer to everything (I leave that to others), but the thing is, Hitler was charismatic and captured the masses of his time (at least for a while). That today his screaming and rumbling doesn't grip us is another issue and has to do with the changing times and of course with Hitler's example itself. And the charisma was a pre-requisite for "his promises of German recovery, his national myth-making, the huge and incredibly pretentious rallies" and "his self-projection as a great and decisive leader". Imagine Himmler (or Drexler or Brüning) trying to do that - they could have used the same content that Hitler did - but would it have worked? The role of anti-Semitism for Hitler's success (not for his intentions) is over-estimated IMHO but without charisma Hitler wouldn't have brought this ressentiment across as much as he did. Str1977 11:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not just "us" who dislike him, I clearly mentioned there were plenty of contemporaries who had a low opinion of him. As for the constant drumming about charisma leading the masses - it sounds more and more like metaphysical rubbish, particularly when you say the role of anti-semitism is overestimated. The latter was one of THE major causes for his popularity. There are plenty of things besides 'charisma' at play when you're spouting on a mike to a crowd. A lot of 'charismatic' people can be found at Speaker's Corner, London, or other similar places in the world, where people bawl on about their opinions. Nobody really listens to them very seriously. I mentioned all the rallies, the propaganda (flyers, posters, movies), the mythmaking, all of which you curiously ignore, choosing to focus instead on some ethereal quality that hypnotizes millions and makes Hitler sound like a wizard. As for the comparison with Himmler - you might as well ask, what if it was Socrates or Freud making those speeches... does it ever occur to you that the Nazi/Fascist ideology was popular even where Hitler never spoke? Should we not call Franco, Mussolini, etc 'charismatic' as well? -- Simonides 11:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Simonides, I sincerly believe that you don't think your fellow editors Nazi apologists. You stated that you don't and I believe you. However, it is not helpful when then equate the attribution of charisma to AH with "liking" him. You can have a low opinion of Hitler and still think him charismatic. I happen to hold that opinion.

And, as a historian, I must also say that you are wrong in thinking that anti-semitism was "one of THE major causes for his popularity" - people thronged to him because he made them feel that they were important, that their little concerns and needs were matters of great importance and because he promised them a future - anti-semitism played into this as well, providing the essential role of a scape-goat, though not so much the Jews as such but the alleged "Jewish communists who had stabbed the army in the back in 1918", the so-called November criminals. But people did not vote for Hitler because he vilified the Jews, they voted for them because he promised a future. Str1977 17:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I do call Mussolini charismatic because he developed an asbolutely enormous mass following in the same way that Elvis Presly developed a mass following of fanatics and people who would die or kill for that single person although he was not a particularly talented musician by any stretch of the immagination. It was his CHARISMA that made people (especially women) virtually worship the man. The same is true of the Beatles. You yourself brought up the example of Britney Spears. If she's such an awful musician (as she surely is) then why is she so popular?? Sex appeal perhaps in her case. But Madonna?? Charisma. But, above all, how do you explain the ability of people like the Reverend Moon, Jim Jones and other cult leaders to convince people that they are almost gods?? Charisma is a very subtle and very complex psychological phenomonen: it is not mystery or magic, it is an observable phenomenon of social psychology which is being investigated. There is almost univeral agreement among such mass psychologists that Hitler was able to manipulate masses of people into doing things that they otherwise would not do. Charisma probably consists in a combination of several characteristics: the ability to project an aura of extreme self-confidence and authority (this is very useful in times of crisis), rhetorical and verbal skill, a deep instinctive understanding of human mass psychology (what the people want, what they feel, what they need, who they hate, etc.), the ability to lie, deceive and commit crimes effectively without batting an eyelash (in technical terms, anti-social personality disorder or sociopathy) and so on. So, there is no mystery to the phenomenon of charisma at all.--Lacatosias 13:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note: I wrote "This whole charisma thing is overdone and as far as I can see, on this article, it reeks of apologist tones"; I did not explicitly call anyone here an apologist and if that's the impression you got, sorry. -- Simonides 11:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Allright, Simonides, clarification accepted. And I understand that apologists (for whom - I guess the German people) could use AH's charisma as an excuse, e.g. he hypnotized us into doing it - à la Doctor Mabuse - but there are many other elements that can be used for such purposes - these elements are true in themselves but can be mis-used, e.g. Communists set out to conquer the world - true, but that proves neither the Reichstag Fire to be a an act of the Communists, nor any Soviet military threat against Germany in 1941. Hitler claimed both and was deceiving in both instances, but the expansionist nature of Communism is true nonetheless. This just an example to illustrate the point. Str1977 11:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Please remember, I'm NOT saying that NOBODY thought of Hitler as charismatic, or that it was insignificant. I'm saying it is one of the less significant factors among many others; and that to link it directly with totalitarian control is misleading, whereas the popularity explains (partly) the ease with which Hitler took totalitarian control; which in turn is clarified in the article. - Simonides 11:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

But IMHO "charisma" is not a matter of somebody thinking of AH as charismatic, but rather of the reaction that AH evoked in many people - not that all were taken in by this and not that all you were instantly taken in than "remained under his spell". Also, maybe the link I edited-in is worded to strongly - what I tried to do is include this characteristic of AH as a person into the article without sounding endorsing (as the former wording of "under his charismatic authority/leadership" at least could be understood). Str1977 12:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So, trying to sum up here, what seems to be the center of this debate is (now) not the use of the word "charismatic" in itself but its placement,by iself, in the second paragraph of the artcile. The sentencse reads (or read, I have no idea how it dtand at the moment as this is sort of becoming like a blog more than an academic disccusion): Hitler's charimstaic and rehtroticl skill....AIDED (that is they were only one factor among many others which are to identifed perhaps or clarified later on) in his ability to obtain and sustain...."

All of the other considerations which you ahve mentioned thatmight have gone into the develoment of the populaity which then led to the tolitarian coltrol of the Greman nation should cetrtainly be mentioned in the artcile somewhere (I belive they are). Perhaps a way to resolve this would be to state someting along the lines "Hitler's populaity, attributable to various factors including his rheotical shiils, charmtsic peronslaity, use of proganadd, etc, etc, eventually led him to become a leadre of the masses.

He was able to establish a tolalitarian sate though this populiary,illegals and violent methods and the tacit or active cooperation of other forces."

Ths is just barely scratched off while my mother is shouting at me that I ahve to go and eat. So, please remeber, just trying to help. --Lacatosias 12:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If anyone seriously thinks they can "explain" Hitler or indeed the Third Reich in a couple of paragraphs, they are sadly deluded. Charisma did play a part in Hitler's popularity; women are known to have swooned in his presence. No doubt his "charisma" was a product of many things - a man will often be seen as attractive if he possesses power. Hitler also fed into the German self-image that was seriously shattered after Versailles - they had been blamed (unfairly in a German perspective, and increasingly in the eyes of historians) for somehow starting the First World War, were forced to pay harsh reparations, and underwent social and economic turmoil. Hitler reversed all that. Because he was a gambler, he seemed fearless to the German people - this led to a sense of charisma also. In person, he could speak on a variety of subjects, had a good memory for technical specifications, and impressed those of average education (those who knew him extremely well tired of his repetitive subjects of conversation, his flatulence, his halitosis, but this doesn't apply to the masses). However one defines charisma, Hitler was able to exercise it over large numbers of people - though it was, I think, more strongly perceived by those who didn't have to work with him over long periods of time.Michael Dorosh 15:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Final words

The last section just got ridiculously long-winded and we're not officially running in circles. For the last time (I hope)

• no one is denying that Hitler was, to some people, charismatic.
• No one is denying such a thing as charisma exists.
• No one is denying his alleged charisma contributed to his popularity and consequently to his complete control.

I am.it's out of line with the dates 30 Jan to 23 March 1933. Charisma 'were'nt' a factor.EffK

Please read, re-read, etc what I wrote carefully, ie that

• charisma played a small part among equally if not more important things.
• Charisma is much less objective a quality than popularity, the latter being easily verifiable.
• We should not attempt to define some "inherent" qualities of Hitler, at least right at the beginning, or anyone else, because it is an oversimplification, a vagary, and contributes to the same type of myths that make up racial theories. In saying that, however, I'm not calling anyone here a racist.
• It is not necessary to qualify his popularity with some 'inherent', very subjective factor like 'charisma', it is enough to mention he was popular and let readers find out for themselves why; in much the same way that one is calling him totalitarian, or a murderer, and leaving people to find out why. Certainly, in the context of his speeches, one can insert "many audiences found him charismatic" - I think this makes all the difference, between saying his charisma aided totalitarian control (wrong), and saying his charisma cemented his popularity and consequently his control.
• Keep in mind that Hitler tried and succeeded in wiping out all political opposition, and that by the time he was firmly in power, the intelligentsia were already disappointed, censored, escaping Germany and so on. We shouldn't fall for the propagandistic trap that because his was the most popular party, everybody loved and really wanted him there.
• Nazism found sympathizers as far away as South America. Much more was at play than mere personality traits.

Etc. That said, perhaps the last suggestion - by lacat... is probably the closest to what a better intro would look like, though it is probably too long. If everyone here agrees let's move forward on the article and rephrase the intro according to his suggestions . -- Simonides 16:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, someone back there, I'm sorry but I've forogotten the username meantioned somethijg about tryng to sum up the whole thing in a few paragraphs. I hope I wan't intended by that remark. I wouldn't dare!! As I've said before, and I will repeat, I'm not even close to qualified for such a task. If you check my user page, you will see that I am currently working towrd my ph,D. in philopsophy (specifically philosphy of language and philosophy of science). I am not a historian but I am fascinated by, and love to learn about, a trmendous variety of subjects. I have hardly touched the actualt text of the artcile, in fact, but have mosty limted myslef to asking question, making observations once in a while and cricizing some choices of wording. I'm certainly not trying to explain Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Second, I understand and appreciate Simonides points better now that he has clarfied them and I don't disagree with any of them in fact. Also, I take your last remark about using my two quickly jotted off paragraphs as a comliment, agree that it is too long and I add once again "just trying to help"....--Lacatosias 18:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, I think I can live with a version of what Lacat posted above, though I am not sure about "illegal" - not that some things wweren't illegal, but in the context I think that's too blunt. I think the elements included should be: charisma, rhetorics/propaganda, violence/bullying, intrigue. I also am not sure where to put it.

Unconstitutional and conspiracy r more real factors.EffK

Simonides, I also wanted to point out to you that with "inherent" I didn't mean genetic or anything like this - only that it was a characteristic of Hitler, "coming from within" so to speak, and not the result of his interaction with others, as "popularity" or "intrigue" are.

Str1977 18:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If yr a 'historian', source it. Charisma was badly placed before. Now per Str1977 it is misleading(un-historic).If length is yr problem , expand it. Conspiracy was the Nuremberg conclusion, not charisma. Anyway if its so central where else is it in the article? I'm looking for the word conspiracy as well...EffK 21:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy was not the Nuremberg conclusion. Nuremberg reached verdicts on people. The only conspiracy charged in Nuremberg was conspiracy against peace. Hitler was not charged at Nuremberg and charisma is no crime under any law. Str1977 21:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought Mein Kampf was formally proscribed? Why does this article not state that? There is no conspiracy word, nor does charisma appear to be claimed to anywhere play any part in the obtention of Totalitarian Government....Nope no such further claim for either. The manner of Str1977's inclusion is un-historical to me, sorry.EffK 21:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Because no one though of including it. You did so why don't you just include it. Even you should be able to include this small fact in a NPOV way, shouldn't you?

Anyway, the legal status of Mein Kampf is included under "Legacy. Str1977 21:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

golbez and face-slapping

User:Golbez has deleted part of the second paragraph because he thinks we are slapping the readers in the face (i.e. it was too POV or something).

Here's the Italian version with traslation below (extremely concise with a very sharp and effectuve elbow to the ribs, IMO):

dolf Hitler (Braunau am Inn, Austria, 20 aprile 1889 - Berlino, 30 aprile, 1945) fu "Führer und Reichskanzler" (Duce e Cancelliere) della Germania dal 1933 al 1945. Fu il principale istigatore dell'olocausto e della seconda guerra mondiale, che assieme portarono alla morte di circa 50 milioni di persone.

tr. Hitler (...) was Fuhrer and Reichskansler" (leader and Chancellor) of Germany from 1933 to 1945. He was the principal instigator of the Holocaust and of the Second World War, which together resulted in the deaths of about 50 million people.

My point: now that may be a bit excessive for a first paragraph but somehow I like it better. It deosn't attempt to smooth over and hollow out the fundmdntal point of Hitler---the man was the personal incarnation of evil. If I were religious, I would absolutely consider his actions unworthy of Satan himself. By attempting to smooth over and massage the monstrous terror of this man, we end up with an emasculated and disembolewed artcile which says that Histler was just some old chap who rebuilt the economy, restored extraodinty sens of pride and glory to the nation and just happened, by the by, to do this and this bad thing. It's now a whitewash!! Give--Lacatosias 19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC) me a break!!

It was heavily excessive. We can have something in there about how he gained power, but the laundry list was a bit much. I don't want a whitewash, but I don't want to list every possible bad thing in the opening either. He gained power with his charisma and his ultranationalism, maybe we can start from there. --Golbez 19:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutley agreed!! That's fine as far as Iìm concerned. But if you look back at some of the previous dicussion on this page you'll notice that there was a huge debate about the use of the word "charisma" versus "popularity" and so on which went on for about five pages. (0. I don't know how the other participants (who are apparently off for the weekend or something) will react.--Lacatosias 20:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't dedicated much argument to the opening sentence but as someone who has this page on his watchlist, mainly for the sake of reverting vandalism, I have to say that I agree with both of you and I think the paragraph as it is right now, which is not too whitewashy and not an ugly list of negatives, is a perfect introduction. --Jelligraze 02:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Simonides just changed it back to a list of negatives so I have to take away my above mentioned approval. *Sigh* --Jelligraze 03:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I find all this squeamishness about a terrible time absolutely ridiculous. If it is not documented and portrayed accurately by an encyclopedia, who the hell can you rely on to report it fairly? I'm embroiled in the same issue at the Joseph Stalin where a large contingent of 'genteel' and possibly biased editors would remove all mention of Stalin's victims if they could. Are all you people slightly off or what? These eras saw the constant, overwhelming and practically unimaginable persecution, suffering and murder of millions of people through sheer stupidity, malice, pettiness, selfishness, lies, sadism and other base or disgusting tendencies. And there were many other millions pulling this off. Stalin, Hitler and other such figures may not have pulled triggers often but they certainly revelled in creating and fuelling such large-scale horrors. I take it most of you do not read personal accounts of survivors of camps or "mere" repression, or you wouldn't all be so casual about Hitler's vices and prettifying him for your average, media-supersaturated ignoramus. I am not accusing you of being apologists or racists, once again - but I do accuse you of being ever so smug. We can't water everything down just so as not to scare off some soccer parent, or to find the right 'balance' - there isn't any balance to be found here. You can aim for concision, but not concision at the expense of accuracy. As Lacatosias wrote above, NPOV doesn't mean making every biographical subject sound like an errant grandpa.

To address some specific issues, I didn't just write nationalism. I wrote racist, ultra-nationalism, and there's a difference - independence fighters under colonialism are nationalists. They are not necessarily racist. Hitler was an ultra-nationalist because he specifically relied on the idea of a German "volk", the Aryan race, a superior people out to create a glorious empire etc. And although this may be inherently racist, it is not quite racist to the specific degree, again, that Hitler was. So many of his arguments are repeatedly, emphatically pivotal on anti-Semitism, on how German society would improve with the extermination of Jews, and so on. So the two deserve separate mention. And once again, by removing things like propaganda - the Nazi use of propaganda is now a textbook case - and Hitler's repeated use of violence - a VERY common tactic of the Nazis, and one repeatedly brought up by memoirists, historians etc, that Hitler used to intimidate and/or persuade the average citizen - by removing mention of these things, one elevates Hitler's notable rhetorical skills to something stupendous.

Quite apart from minor debates on verbiage, I think what is missing is the right tone and depth of information among most Wikipedia editors for articles like these. Issues like the right word in the right place, otherwise so silly, keep cropping up here because people take these things too lightly. Eventually the lack of attention begins to sound like bias, so despite good intentions editors can't help inserting something inane, if not offensive. -- Simonides 03:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"Eventually the lack of attention begins to sound like bias, so despite good intentions editors can't help inserting something inane, if not offensive." That is only what you think. The opening that said: "nationalist ideas and his rhetorical skills" was good enough. It said everything that you've said but more professionally and low-keyed. Which is how a wikipedian article should be. If the viewer wanted to look up a list of insults then they could simply check out urban-dictionaries entry on Hitler. Speaking of being professional, I believe the fact that most of us have agreed to the other version, but you keep changing it to fit your own beliefs is very unprofessional for a wikipedian editor. --Jelligraze 04:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Professionals? Are you trying to make someone laugh?

Maybe you should also quote what I wrote about being smug - seems to correlate with your inflated notion of being a "professional". -- Simonides 04:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if you see Wikipedia as being a joke. We don't all see it that way. Like I said urban-dictionary is just around the corner. --Jelligraze 04:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

You ought to find a professional article on professional Wikipedia in which sound bites are an area of professional speciality. That way you can argue professionally for ages without bringing forward any valid points. -- Simonides 04:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is simple Simonides: The majority of us disagree with your view on how the opening of this article should be. Either you can keep holding the article hostage to your view point or you can help the community by going back to the version that the majority of us agree upon. The article can't survive if the minority viewpoint consistly edits the article to fit their own view. If that isn't a valid enough point for a wikipedia article then I don't know what would be.--Jelligraze 04:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is even simpler: the majority viewpoint is not necessarily a correct or even a worthwhile viewpoint. The overwhelming majority on Wikipedia are if not Western, then West-centric; if not technology-oriented, then at least ignorant of many issues in culture and the humanities; if not biased then simply unintentionally wrong. It takes a lot of effort on a daily basis to correct these tendencies and one of the few reasons why Wikipedia even tries to broaden its scope is that a handful of posters have had to argue furiously against the status quo till people began to even acknowledge something was wrong (I'm not trying to elevate any of my contributions to Wikipedia by the way, I rarely come here now except for minor tweaks; however, the debates I've had or those who share my views have had are a minor reflection of much larger trends.) -- Simonides 05:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Boy oh boy!! Tsk, tsk...please ease up ladies and gentlement (that is, assuming thre are any women who contribute to these pages...BTW, Simonides point about systemic bias is obviously a serious consieration that some of us are trying to address). But, in all seriousness, I don't think the "majority" has spoken up in favor of the one version (Gobez's, I think?) versus the most recent. Perosanlly, I can live with either of them, as they are both vast improvement over what was on that page about a week or so ago: "Hitler's charismatic aand rhetorical skills were useful in gaining him power. The economy was rebuilt from scratch; the armed forces become the most powerful in the world..." or somehting along those lines. And yet there was hardly a peep out of ANYONE back them !! Unbelievable!! I was almost horrified and agree compltely with Simonides in this respect probably. To come to specifics, I think Simonides distiction bwteeen nationalism and racism is a valuable and important one. The fascist Mussolini regime was profoundly nationalist, e.g., but not so deeply anti-semitic and racist until it became a practical matter of Mussonili's need to accomodate Hitler demands as part of the Axis alliance. This is not a perfect example. It is difficult to think of cases off hand, but surely it is possible for a people to be nationalist (my country is better than yours) without necessarily being racist (my race is better than yours) or else there would be no need for the linguistic distinction. But, ultimately, I can live with eiher version. Let's try not get carries away into personal attacks by this issue.--Lacatosias 08:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's nice of you to come here and try to bring peace Lacatosias. But I just want to point out that the issue isn't so much of systemic bias but of NPOV. Trust me, i'm not a very politically correct person and if not for the NPOV wikipedian policy I would have no problem with any of the things written on Hitler. When a wikipedian states that their beliefs of how the article should be presented is superior to others, even if most others disagree with said person, I feel that is the opposite of how Wikipedia should be handled. I think when there are conflicts on an article everyone should go to talk page and the majority should rule, not the most arrogant.--Jelligraze 19:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Just one observation: you have heard of the tyranny of the majority, no??" Sometimes majorities can be profoudnly wrond, plain and simple, and it has to be brough to their attention. As Ibsen out it: "If I am a minority of one, the truth is still the truth." facts are still facts. The majprity of Americans believe that Elvis Presly is still alive; that Darwin was wrond and creationsm is right. If the majority of Wikipedians are creationists, of cousrse, I'll just stop participating. but we have here identified a very very serious weakness of this style of collaborative democratic encylopedia writing. I being to think I would prefer it if this page and others like it were left to historians and the philosophy pages left to philsophers. I feel reasonably certain, on the other hand, that the pages on Hilbert spaces and so on are not dabbled with by the majority of people beside mathemeticans and math lovers.--Lacatosias 17:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's science, math and IT articles are (for the most part) wonderful. However, Wikipedia's open-wiki nature falls to its knees in high traffic social sciences articles and this is one of about half a dozen of the worst (never mind the strong emotions the mere mention of AH's name still provokes). That said, it has taken years, but the article has slowly developed into an encyclopedic, academically sound and helpful entry. Wyss 17:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

"It has taken years", eh?? Well, I've only been around for just over a month and, while things often seem chaotic and compltely random (you wonder how ANYTHING gets into the article) I have to admit that there is good material there and I have personally learned something from reading and partcipiting (same is true wrt to the article fascism but there I can contribuet more because of my knowledge of some Italian sources that others can't read). I can't imagine (and don't want to) what the artciles on thisngs like abortion and George Bush are like.--Lacatosias 17:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

They're as difficult if not worse. Wyss 18:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)